Gay Marriage Billboard in Greensboro Stirs Emotions

The unveiling of a billboard in Greensboro could open up the debate over gay marriage .

[Vladimir]

Meanwhile......The billboard needs to go!!
Every nation that has succombed to open homosexuality and open sin is just something we read about in the history books now!

[Rick in Kansas]

Vladimir wrote:

Meanwhile......The billboard needs to go!!

Actually it's an effort that should be expanded statewide and across every other state which denies same-sex couples legal equality. The fact that they bother bigots along the way is just a side benefit of such a message.

Vladimir wrote:

Every nation that has succombed to open homosexuality and open sin is just something we read about in the history books now!

Really? Name one and please provide proof to back up your claim, as same sex marriage and marriage equality has been offered in a number of countries for the better part of this decade and they haven't collapsed into the ash heap of history, so I'd love to read your historical proof of this theory...

[WoodHPU]

Vladimir wrote:

Meanwhile......The billboard needs to go!!
Every nation that has succombed to open homosexuality and open sin is just something we read about in the history books now!

Here we go again..some right wing nut that had a tad bit to much of the wine in church on Sunday!

[dances with weebles]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Actually it's an effort that should be expanded statewide and across every other state which denies same-sex couples legal equality. The fact that they bother bigots along the way is just a side benefit of such a message.
<quoted text>Really? Name one and please provide proof to back up your claim, as same sex marriage and marriage equality has been offered in a number of countries for the better part of this decade and they haven't collapsed into the ash heap of history, so I'd love to read your historical proof of this theory...

what he doesn't understand is that the roman empire fell due to the advent of christianity in rome.

[Rick in Kansas]

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
what he doesn't understand is that the roman empire fell due to the advent of christianity in rome.

Aw shucks, there you go and spoil the surprise I was saving if Vlad actually came back and gave that as an example. Oh well, The thing is, people of faith, regardless of faith, tend to have a mythologized view of history that unsurprisingly always works out in favor of their particular set of beliefs. History really doesn't reflect all that kindly on religion and so it's better to mythologize than have to deal with the truth.

[opec]

"gay" is an abomination!

[dances with weebles]

opec wrote:

"gay" is an abomination!

so are you, so where does that leave us?

actually, if you read it, the book of leviticus calls it 'taboo', meaning that it couldn't be performed in the temple as a religious rite... not an abomination.

maybe you should actually study it before you try to talk about it, okay?(just a suggestion to help you save yourself some future embarrassment)

[Vladimir]

WoodHPU wrote:

<quoted text>
Here we go again..some right wing nut that had a tad bit to much of the wine in church on Sunday!

Case in point- When confronted with the truth you go completely off topic and start name calling -

Oh, by the way ever heard of Sodom? How about Gomorrah? They were overrun with homosexuals- How did that turn out for them?

Back to the Billboard please! Just shows the moral decay of this society- Oh we must be politically correct and can't advertise tobacco products it might influence the children to smoke- but yet we allow a billboard showing open homsexuals; wonder what effect that may have on the children?

[Pagan and Proud]

Vladimir wrote:

<quoted text>
Case in point- When confronted with the truth you go completely off topic and start name calling -

And it was in response to the off topic rant you posted originally.

Vladimir wrote:

Oh, by the way ever heard of Sodom? How about Gomorrah? They were overrun with homosexuals- How did that turn out for them?

Actually according to your mythology it wasn't strictly homosexuals and it WAS stated that their sin was "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.(Ezekiel 16:49, 50)

Vladimir wrote:

Back to the Billboard please! Just shows the moral decay of this society- Oh we must be politically correct and can't advertise tobacco products it might influence the children to smoke- but yet we allow a billboard showing open homsexuals; wonder what effect that may have on the children?

None.

[Rick in Kansas]

Vladimir wrote:

Case in point- When confronted with the truth you go completely off topic and start name calling -

Odd that you would skip over the first reply to you, which was on topic and didn't engage in any name calling to reply to the second. Talk about your persecution complexes.

Vladimir wrote:

Oh, by the way ever heard of Sodom? How about Gomorrah? They were overrun with homosexuals- How did that turn out for them?

Overrun with homosexuals? What pray-tell is the scriptural evidence of that? I've read the Genesis account (which doesn't even mention Gomorrah and doesn't say what you want it to), the moral of the story as provided by Ezekiel (which doesn't mention them), the story which parallels it in Judges (where "to know" is seen as a death threat) and the allusions to it in the New Testament (which aren't nearly as supportive as you imagine) and I have to tell you, it takes some serious torturing of scripture to leap to your conclusion.

Vladimir wrote:

Back to the Billboard please! Just shows the moral decay of this society- Oh we must be politically correct and can't advertise tobacco products it might influence the children to smoke- but yet we allow a billboard showing open homsexuals; wonder what effect that may have on the children?

While you have chosen to see this billboard as a sign of "moral decay", I see it as a sign of moral progress. Although you have chosen to believe that "God" hates homosexuals, that is far from a universal belief and there are those who base their beliefs on the exact same teachings that you do, who have come to the belief that God loves His Lesbian and Gay children just as He chose to create them and that there is nothing morally objectionable about being homosexual. People who are Lesbian and Gay, especially those who are in long-term committed relationships have nothing to be ashamed of and that is hopefully what "the children" will learn. I'm sorry if your beliefs can't stand up to the reality of the world around them, but that would indicate a problem with your beliefs rather than a problem with reality...

[dances with weebles]

Vladimir wrote:

<quoted text>
Case in point- When confronted with the truth you go completely off topic and start name calling -
Oh, by the way ever heard of Sodom? How about Gomorrah? They were overrun with homosexuals- How did that turn out for them?

and when confronted with the truth you either start making things up or simply fall back on the old familiar lies that your mommy taught you...

can you show us any proof that homosexuality was a major sin in sodom and gomorrah? that's not what the bible says. in fact, it says absolutely nothing about homosexuality.

Vladimir wrote:

<quoted text>
Back to the Billboard please! Just shows the moral decay of this society- Oh we must be politically correct and can't advertise tobacco products it might influence the children to smoke- but yet we allow a billboard showing open homsexuals; wonder what effect that may have on the children?

homosexuality isn't a health issue and it can't effect anybody, including children, if they aren't gay already. unless, of course, you take into consideration that it may open their eyes to the truth.

[InPerspective]

The person who thought of giving us the opportunity to comment on these stories needs a raise and a promotion. But unfortunately, all they are going to report is the murders, sex offenses and other controversial issues that make our blood boil. Is it too much to ask for the first printing of the story to be factual and complete?

[Pagan and Proud]

InPerspective wrote:

The person who thought of giving us the opportunity to comment on these stories needs a raise and a promotion. But unfortunately, all they are going to report is the murders, sex offenses and other controversial issues that make our blood boil. Is it too much to ask for the first printing of the story to be factual and complete?

The story was put on TOPIX by the Roboblogger. it doesn't read the articles, it simply posts.

[Lou]

I personally just don't believe in gay marriage. It always has been and always will be my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what MY God says. I don't force my beliefs down other peoples' throats, and I would appreciate if I were given the same respect from people who don't share my views. Gays want civil unions? Go for it. Just don't use the term my God uses for me. It's all about that 1 word for most christians that I know.

[AquariusNSF]

Lou wrote:

I personally just don't believe in gay marriage. It always has been and always will be my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what MY God says. I don't force my beliefs down other peoples' throats, and I would appreciate if I were given the same respect from people who don't share my views. Gays want civil unions? Go for it. Just don't use the term my God uses for me. It's all about that 1 word for most christians that I know.

Where does G-d state any such thing??? The Bible certainly does not prohibit SSM.

[Pagan and Proud]

Lou wrote:

I personally just don't believe in gay marriage. It always has been and always will be my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what MY God says. I don't force my beliefs down other peoples' throats, and I would appreciate if I were given the same respect from people who don't share my views. Gays want civil unions? Go for it. Just don't use the term my God uses for me. It's all about that 1 word for most christians that I know.

Attempting to demand that your mythology owns that word is indeed attempting to shove your beliefs down others throats. There is no legitimate reason to change the terminology.

[Ivelostmimarblez]

Lou wrote:

I personally just don't believe in gay marriage. It always has been and always will be my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what MY God says. I don't force my beliefs down other peoples' throats, and I would appreciate if I were given the same respect from people who don't share my views. Gays want civil unions? Go for it. Just don't use the term my God uses for me. It's all about that 1 word for most christians that I know.

Considering that one word isn't exclusive to your religion you really can't monopolize it. Why not let the rest of the world have "marriage" and you start calling yours "holy matrimony" or something of the sort? The main problem gay people have with "cival union" is that across the board rights are still denied under that term and legally speaking is not given equal ground.

[Gay Mom]

Lou wrote:

I personally just don't believe in gay marriage. It always has been and always will be my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what MY God says. I don't force my beliefs down other peoples' throats, and I would appreciate if I were given the same respect from people who don't share my views. Gays want civil unions? Go for it. Just don't use the term my God uses for me. It's all about that 1 word for most christians that I know.

Origin:
1250–1300; ME mariage < OF, equiv. to mari(er) to marry 1 +-age -age

The word marriage is from the 1250 to 1300 year range. The bible was written before that. So... how could it be in the bible???

[Vladimir]

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Origin:
1250–1300; ME mariage < OF, equiv. to mari(er) to marry 1 +-age -age
The word marriage is from the 1250 to 1300 year range. The bible was written before that. So... how could it be in the bible???

FYI-It is in the KJV 21 times

[Pagan and Proud]

Ivelostmimarblez wrote:

<quoted text>
Considering that one word isn't exclusive to your religion you really can't monopolize it. Why not let the rest of the world have "marriage" and you start calling yours "holy matrimony" or something of the sort? The main problem gay people have with "civil union" is that across the board rights are still denied under that term and legally speaking is not given equal ground.

That and the fact that Marriage does create a legal line of familial attachment that is not present in Civil Unions